Tag Archives: iran

A basic economic principle is the necessity of accounting for both the seen and the unseen (first elucidated by the great French economist Frédéric Bastiat). It provides a basis for understanding how politicians perennially cast themselves in the role of Santa Claus whilst picking our pockets. We are a willing audience to the magician who dazzles us with (for example) public works project (the seen benefit) while remaining unaware of the unseen harms unfolding (those things not done, created, or attempted due to diversion of resources into the political projects). The principal works for any intervention into people’s lives. For example, sanctions or trade embargos are often put in place in order to influence the actions of the leaders of another country. Although there is not a single historical precedent for this ever working, it remains the most popular passive-aggressive tool in the arsenal of the state. The language used to speak of such embargos employs the ruse of anthropomorphization (“America” cuts off trade to “Iran”) in order to hide the underlying reality that rather than the target country being harmed it is the individuals that constitute that country that are harmed. See, it’s not millions of people being made to suffer; it’s just a nebulous non-human “country”. Those who engage in these practices of course understand the reality of weighing human suffering and misery against the greater good of their desired ends. Indeed it was Madeline Albright’s admission that the deaths of approximately half a million Iraqi children during the 1990s sanctions against Iraq were “worth it” in order to achieve their goals (this remark was specifically cited by Osama Bin Laden as one of the many reasons behind the 9/11 attacks).

But that is just the seen harm. There is also an unseen harm levied against US citizens and businesses who are barred from trading with the country embargoed (for example, Iran). Iranians want to buy US made goods. US businesses want to sell those goods. We have a willing buyer and a willing seller being prevented from engaging in trade because of a belligerent busy-body-bully in the middle. Those lost sales for US businesses will not be made up somewhere else – they are simply gone. These missed opportunities lead to more unseen harms – lost jobs, or rather jobs that would have been created but never were.

To the extent US businesses have foreign competitors in countries lacking an embargo against Iran then it is our own government that is pushing sales into the arms of their competitors. Brilliant. Some might say that this loss in sales to US companies is “worth it”, that it is their patriotic duty to suffer through such lost sales in order to help our country battle the existential threat we face from a country… that has never threatened us nor attacked any other country in over two-hundred years. Well that is certainly easy to say when you’re not the one cruising past potential income you are barred from touching. Ask yourself, would you willingly skip annual bonuses if your government told you it would help influence Iran? Yeah, I didn’t think so. And apparently Boeing doesn’t think so either – this politically well-connected company managed to get itself on a short list of companies exempt from the current trade embargo with Iran. How convenient. Apparently the expediency of pleasing big donors trumps the so-called “national interest” that applies to everyone else. Justice for all indeed.

With the ongoing debate about the “Iran Deal” and whether or not it is “good” or “bad” no one has thought to ask why should there be a “deal” at all. Think about it – wherefrom does the United States, or any other country, assert the right to dictate to other nations what they may or may not do within their own borders? Do you think our government or citizenry would stand for one second if say France, Brazil, and Argentina got together and told the US government it must immediately cease all production of nuclear weapons and dispose of those that it had? The idea is laughable and yet that is exactly what our government, in league with other countries, is dictating to the Iranian government. Now make no mistake, I’m no apologist for the Iranian government. All governments are so bad the only way to rank them is from least bad to worst. But, if we are to accept the narrative of the statists, namely that the people’s of each country have the right to elect their own government (and yes, Iran is a republic with elections) and be ruled by them without external influence, then certainly the hubris of demanding that the people of Iran beg for permission to behave as other countries is evidence of rank hypocrisy.

Nobody asks why are trying to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. To answer that we must ask why do we think they would behave any differently than other bomb-holding nations. The simplistic answer is, “they hate us” or “they hate Israel”. But why? People don’t just start hating other people for no reason whatsoever. Some might say it is their religion that drives them to hate us. But if so, then it seems quite odd none of these feeling manifested themselves prior to 1953. What’s so special about that year? Well it is the year the UK and US governments orchestrated a coup of the democratically elected Prime Minster of Iran, Mosaddegh, and the installation of our puppet dictator the Shah. Perhaps living 25 years under the Shahs’ brutal regime tended to foster a bit of resentment among the populace. Perhaps US aid to our good friend Saddam Hussein and Iraq in its war against Iran in the 1980’s made them somewhat skeptical of the neutrality of the US. That’s not to say that if Iran did acquire a bomb and used it that it would be justified, but it would at least be understandable in the same sense we can understand why a battered wife, after enduring years of abuse, would buy a gun and kill her husband. As our fictional friend Commander William Adama once said, “Sooner or later, the day comes when you can’t hide from the things that you’ve done anymore.”

Like a parent who abused their children when they were young and helpless, there comes a day when those children grow up ready to strike back. This deal is an attempt to forestall that inevitable day of reckoning a bit longer. We have been propagandized to fear that day will be marked with a mushroom cloud. But the ruling class knows that won’t happen, they are far more concerned that if Iran acquires nuclear capability then their power and influence will be reduced and they will have no choice but to treat Iran as an equal (or at least no longer meddle with them). North Korea has a far more evil government than Iran and yet we hear nothing in regards to “regime change”. It couldn’t be because North Korea has a nuclear weapon could it? Just as a gun on the hip commanded respect in the old west, so today does a nuke in ones arsenal grant one the right to be left alone. The idea that Iran would nuke Israel is laughable. Israel has its own nukes and would instantly respond in kind. But even more so, the geography of it makes no sense. It would be like New Jersey nuking Long Island and expecting Delaware, Rhode Island and Connecticut to not get upset by having a nuke dropped in their backyard.

Iran is like a mistreated tiger that we have firmly grasped by the tail. We know if we let go we may very well get bit, or worse. But that cannot go on forever. Someday we must let go. Perhaps if we do so voluntarily by lifting all sanctions and extending a hand of respect and friendship we can show we are serious about making amends for the past misdeeds of our government. That will not only pave the path toward real peace but will disarm the arguments of those in the Iranian government who, like our own chicken hawk Neocons, are saber rattling, using our bellicose behavior as proof of their need to strike against us. Remember, the Japanese didn’t just wake up one day and decide to bomb Pearl Harbor; the US had a years long Naval blockade – economic sanctions – on Japan. Actions have consequences. Some say to have peace you must prepare for war, but sometimes preparing for war sends the signal that there can be no peace.

Search the site…

Consent…

All human interactions should be voluntary. Action upon another without consent (i.e. aggression) is the embodiment of evil. Virtue transforms to vice where consent is absent: love becomes rape, generosity theft, and labor slavery. Where consent exists there is liberty, but where it is absent, only captivity. The pursuit of laudable ends does not exonerate the evils of aggression. While the state purports to own us, we can never be free.

Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom

If this site has sparked an interest in not-officially-approved-opinion and you are ready to "take the red pill" and learn history and economics without the progressive-left spin spoon fed to us in public schools, then go on over to Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom and learn from the experts in a relaxing go-at-your-own-pace style. Enjoy!